Gn 2016 Criminal Law

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. These requisites have been established by the prosecution.

2015-2016 JURISPRUDENCE MURDER PEOPLE VS BOSITO, G.R. 209346, January 12, 2015 Bosito admitted hacking Bonaobra although in self-defense. By invoking self-defense, appellant admits killing the victim and the constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived. The burden of evidence then shifts to the appellant that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability. Thus, it is incumbent upon appellant to prove the elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. The means employed by Bosito to prevent or repel the supposed unlawful aggression was beyond reasonably necessary. As correctly found by the trial and appellate courts, the number, nature, and gravity of the wounds sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined effort to kill and contradict Bosito’s claim of self-defense. The Court also sustained that treachery attended the crime. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Here, the sudden attack of Bosito with a bolo against Bonaobra while they were watching a card game caught the victim by surprise. Bonaobra was unprepared and had no means to put up a defense. Such aggression insured the commission of the crime without risk on Bosito. Also, we agree with the trial court when it held that abuse of superior strength is deemed absorbed in treachery. Since treachery qualifies the crime of murder, the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in the former. PEOPLE VS DIMACUHA, JR., ET AL. G.R. 191060, February 2, 2015 The elements of the crime of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article

The fatal shooting of the victim was attended by treachery, a qualifying circumstance listed under Article 248 and notably, alleged in the Information. For treachery to be properly appreciated, two conditions must be present: (1) at the time of the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is also present, which has the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The plan to kill Agon was conceived a day before the victim was fatally shot. Appellants and their cohorts therefore, had adequate time to reflect on the consequences of their contemplated crime prior to its execution. PEOPLE VS CASAS, G.R. 212565, February 25, 2015 The elements of Murder that the prosecution must establish are: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him or her; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Among the qualifying circumstances thus enumerated in Article 248 is treachery. Under Article 14 of the RPC, “[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.” In other words, to appreciate treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the methods of execution were

Page 1 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

deliberately or consciously adopted; indeed, treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. PEOPLE VS SEVILLANO, G.R. 200800, February 09, 2015 By invoking self-defense, appellant in effect, admits to having inflicted the stab wounds which killed the victim. The burden was, therefore, shifted on him to prove that the killing was done in self-defense. In Razon v. People, this Court held that where an accused admits the killing, he assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when corroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. PEOPLE VS MATIBAG, G.R. 206381, March 25, 2015. In People v. Perez, it was explained that a frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her defense. It is well-settled that there can be no selfdefense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Jurisprudence states that not every form or degree of aggression justifies a claim of self-defense. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, as against the one claiming self-defense. Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294, treats the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special aggravating circumstance. PEOPLE VS MARCELINO OLOVERIO G.R. 211159, March 18, 2015.

Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance need not be felt only in the seconds before the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no longer be repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime. PEOPLE VS DE LEON, ET AL., G.R. 197546, March 23, 2015 Unlawful aggression refers to an assault to attack, or threat in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. Mere threatening or intimidating attitude will not suffice. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. FANTASTICO AND VILLANUEVA VS ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE, G.R. 190912, January 12, 2015. Article 6 of the RPC defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus; There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows: 1.

The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; 3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; 4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two (2) elements, namely: (1) That there be external acts; (2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more

Page 2 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense…It is necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made." The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

PEOPLE VS JAY HINLO A.K.A. "INDAY KABANG", ET AL., G.R. 212151, February 18, 2015.

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime." The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked." The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.

Moreover, conspiracy having been established, when a homicide takes place by reason of or on occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the killing, unless there is proof that there was an endeavour to prevent the killing.

RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE GONZAGA VS PEOPLE, G.R. 195671, January 21, 2015 To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. It is the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct which supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law, without regard to whether the private offended party may himself be considered likewise at fault. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

In People v. Uy, the Court explained that the elements for the crime of robbery with homicide are: (a) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide was committed. A conviction requires that the robbery is the main purpose and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.

PEOPLE VS OROSCO, G.R. 209227, March 25, 2015 The elements of the crime of robbery with homicide are: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed. Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if it is committed (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime.17 In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery.

Page 3 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

RA 9165 PEOPLE VS HAVANA, G.R. 198450. January 11, 2016 Chain of Custody Rule in Drugs Cases Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution - of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PEOPLE VS OPIANA G.R. 200797, January 12, 2015. Sale and illegal possession For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.” PEOPLE VS DAHIL & CASTRO, G.R. 212196, January 12, 2015. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. First link: Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer; Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic Chemist; Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the Court. The presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. PEOPLE VS CASACOP, G.R. 210454, January 13, 2016 The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. LESCANO VS PEOPLE G.R. 214490, January 13, 2016

Page 4 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Compliance with Section 21’s requirements is critical. “Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.” PORTUGUEZ VS PEOPLE, G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015. Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165- illegal possession The essential elements in illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug. This Court holds that all the aforementioned essential elements in illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven in this case. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR (inventory and photographs) does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.” PEOPLE VS MIRANDA, G.R. 205639, January 18, 2016 It is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug that the drug, which is the corpus delicti, be presented as evidence in court. Hence, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established without

any doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. PEOPLE VS ASISLO, G.R. 206224, January 18, 2016 The essential element of the charge of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act. PEOPLE VS ENUMERABLE G.R. 207993, January 21, 2015. It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drug, not only must the essential elements of the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Necessarily, the prosecution must establish that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, the prosecution must sufficiently prove the unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug. PEOPLE VS MINANGA G.R. 202837, January 21, 2015. The essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses

Page 5 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It has been ruled time and again that noncompliance with Section 21 of the IRR (inventory, etc.) does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.” PEOPLE VS PAVIA & BUENDIA G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015 Possession of Dangerous Drugs during Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings The accused claimed that the warrantless arrest was illegal. The elements of the crime committed are: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused, with the additional element that (4) the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons. Citing jurisprudence, RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. x x x. We have emphasized that what is essential is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.” PEOPLE VS MORALES G.R. 206832, January 21, 2015. While the case is pending, Morales died. The SC ruled that the death of accused-appellant Morales pending appeal of his conviction, extinguishes his civil and criminal liabilities. PEOPLE VS LIU

G.R. 189272, January 21, 2015. Importation of regulated drugs The accused were on board a speed boat found to have several transparent plastic bags containing shabu. (a) W/N there is importation of regulated drugs The crime of importation of regulated drugs is committed by importing or bringing any regulated drug into the Philippines without being authorized by law. According to appellants, if it is not proven that the regulated drugs are brought into the Philippines from a foreign origin, there is no importation. Moreover, the Black’s Law Dictionary defines importation as “the act of bringing goods and merchandise into a country from a foreign country.” According to the SC, the mere fact that the appellants were Chinese nationals as well as their penchant for making reference to China where they could obtain money to bribe the apprehending officers does not necessarily mean that the confiscated drugs necessarily came from China. Therefore, the accused are not liable for importation of prohibited drugs. (b) W/N the accused may be held liable for illegal possession In People v. Elkanish, this Court held that possession is inherent in importation. Therefore, while appellants cannot be held liable for the offense of illegal importation charged in the information, their criminal liability for illegal possession, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, may nevertheless be sustained. At this point, this Court notes that charging appellants with illegal possession when the information filed against them charges the crime of importation does not violate their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation brought against them. The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged.

Page 6 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

(c) Warrantless arrest The elements are: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure conducted on appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that the bags containing the regulated drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant. PEOPLE VS PIAD, ET AL. G.R. 213607, January 25, 2016

PEOPLE VS BOCADI & BATICOLON G.R. 193388, July 1, 2015 Validity of Buy-bust Operations despite absence of PDEA officers; No need to present marked money prior to arrest- only need to show illicit transaction occurred; Chain of Custody. PEOPLE VS ENAD G.R. 205764. February 3, 2016 The prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. PEOPLE VS BUTIAL G.R. 192785, February 04, 2015

Chain of Custody Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE VS PASION & PAZ G.R. 203026, January 28, 2015. As the lower courts have, we likewise adhere to the well-entrenched rule that full faith and credence are given to the narration of police officers who testify for the prosecution on the entrapment or buy-bust operation, because as police officers, they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. In a prosecution for the illegal sale and illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. On the other hand, the elements of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)

The SC acquitted the accused in finding that the prosecution failed to show that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved. In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, there must be evidence of the following elements: “(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.” The evidence of corpus delicti must also be established beyond doubt. In this case, the shabu “constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under [RA 9165], the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved.”16 “The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.” PEOPLE VS NEPOMUCENO The Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which are: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.” This offense merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs the

Page 7 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

moment the buyer exchanges his money for the drugs of the seller. In cases involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, “credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Appellant’s contention that her warrantless arrest was unlawful does not deserve credence. The facts on record do not substantiate her claim that she was apprehended merely on suspicion of committing a crime. On the contrary, appellant was arrested after committing a criminal offense that resulted from a successful buy-bust operation. Having been apprehended in flagrante delicto, the police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even without a warrant. PEOPLE VS SUMILI G.R. 212160, February 04, 2015 In order to convict an accused for violation of RA 9165, or the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.24Note that what remains material for conviction is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.25 It is also important that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved. Simply put, the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused must be the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody requirement removes any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity of the evidence. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus, militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused was acquitted. PEOPLE VS USMAN G.R. 201100, February 04, 2015

In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. In many cases, in many cases, the Court held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. PEOPLE VS DACUMA G.R. 205889, February 04, 2015 The following requisites are necessary in order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the prosecution of illegal sale, what is essential is to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The consummation of sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.10 In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets which tested positive for shabu and eventually presented in court were the same ones confiscated by the police officers due to its non-marking at the

Page 8 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

place where the buy-bust operation was committed at the police station. In People v. Kamad, the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must establish to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. These requirements are necessary in order to ensure that the confiscated drug are the same ones presented in court in order to dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. The SC emphasized the importance of the marking of the seized items. In the recent case of People v. Sabdula, failure to mark the plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust operation became the Court’s basis for acquittal. In a number of cases, the Court sanctioned substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team/officers. However, when serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items presented in evidence, liberality ceases and presumption of innocence takes precedence over substantial compliance. PEOPLE VS DASIGAN G.R. 206229, February 04, 2015. Accused: no photographs were taken, inventory was not conducted immediately SC: This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the

prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. In People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien Chua,34 where the marked money was also shown to accused-appellant but it was not actually given to her as she was immediately arrested when the shabu was handed over to the poseur-buyer, the Court held that it is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place, and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller’s receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required. In the case at bar, although accused-appellant was shown the consideration before she handed over the subject shabu to the poseurbuyer, such is not sufficient to consummate the sale. However, the accused is criminally liable for illegal possession. PALO VS PEOPLE, G.R. 192075, February 10, 2016 The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at the police station, and not at the place of seizure, did not compromise the integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has declared that "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even marking done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. PEOPLE VS TAPUGAY G.R. 200336, February 11, 2015 In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution is able to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took

Page 9 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, “substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item” is sufficient. This Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, G.R. 174481, February 10, 2016 Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may be excused so long as the identity of the dangerous drugs is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of custody is established with moral certainty.

arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. This is considering that "[w]hatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because [appellant] did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. x x x PEOPLE VS ROSAURO, G.R. 209588, February 18, 2015 The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of accused-appellant to be the result of a legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary finding. In People v. Bartolome, we had the occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a “decoy solicitation,” to wit: It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the “decoy solicitation” of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.

Failure of the accused to raise an objection on the evidence presented during trial

This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is “almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.

It bears stressing that the Court has already brushed aside an accused’s belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person is inadmissible for failure of the

Under the law, the offense of illegal sale of shabu carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos

PEOPLE VS GABUYA G.R. 195245, February 16, 2015

Page 10 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity and purity of the substance. PEOPLE VS GABUYA, G.R. 195245, February 16, 2015 Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.” Besides and as already mentioned, the CA has already concluded that the identity of the seized drugs was established by the prosecution and its integrity preserved. PEOPLE VS DIAZ, G.R. 197818, February 25, 2015 Prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is fundamental that the factual findings of the trial [court] and those involving credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. It is “settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A. [No.] 9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken.” It must be added, however, that appellant shall not be eligible for parole. PEOPLE VS REYES, G.R. 194606, February 18, 2015 The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, has the following elements: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.” “The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseurbuyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.” Clearly, the element of receipt of payment for the thing sold is absent

in this case. Hence, the offense of illegal sale of shabu against appellant cannot stand. Appellant is guilty instead of illegal delivery of shabu. To establish the guilt of an accused for the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there must be evidence that “(1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery” is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. PEOPLE VS BASILIO, G.R. 195774, February 23, 2015 To obtain a conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 involving a buybust operation, the following essential elements must be established: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.” Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. PEOPLE VS PERONDO, G.R. 193855, February 18, 2015 In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: “(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of thecorpus delicti.” The testimony of the poseur-buyer was not indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best. PEOPLE VS DELA PEÑA & DELIMA, G.R. 207635, February 18, 2015 The elements necessary for the prosecution of a charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs

Page 11 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

subject of the illegal sale - the corpus delicti itself- are not shown. The reason is that the drug presented as evidence at the trial is not shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was the drug subject of the illegal sale.

On the other hand, the elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the presentation of the drugs as evidence in court is material, because the identity of the drugs seized should be established beyond any reasonable doubt. What is more, the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court should be proven. The preservation of the chain of custody of the drugs seized performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts attending the identity of the evidence are removed.

In the prosecution of a case for violation of R.A. 9165, both for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.46 The prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the specimen submitted to the crime laboratory and found positive for dangerous drugs, and finally introduced in evidence against the accused was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from him. PEOPLE VS BIO, G.R. 195850, February 16, 2015 To sustain a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all that is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it is necessary to prove that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. PEOPLE VS ALAGARME G.R. 184789, February 23, 2015 The importance of the State establishing a preserved chain of custody in every criminal prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs cannot be understated. The accused cannot be pronounced guilty of the offense if all the links of the chain of custody of the drug

PEOPLE VS ANGNGAO & CARLIN G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015 “The State bears the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs confiscated during a buy-bust operation. The evidence of the chain of custody must meet the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Should the State not definitively establish that the dangerous drugs presented in court were the very same substances actually recovered from the accused, the criminal prosecution for drug pushing should fail because the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE VS CASACOP G.R. 208685, March 09, 2015 Failure to observe the chain of custody required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 or failure to sufficiently explain the reason for non-observance of the chain of custody creates reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of accusedappellant. PEOPLE VS SORIN

Page 12 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

G.R. 212635, March 25, 2015

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Accordingly, it is of paramount importance for the prosecution to establish that the transaction actually took place, and to present the corpus delicti, i.e., the seized drug/s, before the court. It is well-settled that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized items. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from the accused strongly militates against a finding of guilt, as in this case. Therefore, as reasonable doubt persists on the identity of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused, the latter's acquittal should come as a matter of course. PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ G.R. 205414, April 4, 2016 To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court enumerates the circumstances by which a warrantless arrest are considered reasonable: Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

Requirements under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 mandating the arresting team to conduct a physical inventory of the items seized and photograph the same in the presence of: (1) the accused; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (4) any elected public official who shall further be required to sign the copies of the said inventory. According to appellant, no physical inventory nor photograph was ever taken in this case. Failure to comply with the preceding requirements does not automatically render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence, pursuant to the following Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165: x x x non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] Rule on Chain of Custody The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such manner that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in

Page 13 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Serious or Slight Oral Defamation Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended party KIDNAPPING

PEOPLE VS NUARIN G.R. 188698, July 22, 2015 Chain of Custody. Inconsistent testimonies on Marking the drugs, tantamount to acquittal. PEOPLE VS MAMALUMPON G.R. 210452, August 26, 2015 The failure of the prosecution to conduct a physical inventory and take photograph of the seized item does not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. Ultimately, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti. PEOPLE VS POSADA & POSADA. G.R. 196052, September 2, 2015 Signing the Certification of Orderly Search was not an extrajudicial confession. PEOPLE VS CARRERA G.R. 215731, September 2, 2015 Illegal Delivery of Shabu. Fear for loss of life and limb is a suitable justification for not conducting inventory and marking at nearest police station or barangay hall. ORAL DEFAMATION DE LEON VS PEOPLE & SPO3 LEONARDO G.R. 212623, January 11, 2016

PEOPLE VS PEPINO & GOMEZ G.R. 174471, January 12, 2016 Kidnapping – Duration of Detention If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is also of no moment and the crime is qualified and becomes punishable by death even if none of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 267 is present. RAPE RICALDE VS PEOPLE G.R. 211002, January 21, 2015 Even men can become victims of rape. Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as “instrument or object rape,” “gender-free rape,” or “homosexual rape.” The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is “the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal orifice.” In People v. Soria, this court discussed that a victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal orifice for the court to find that rape through sexual assault was committed; The absence of spermatozoa in XXX’s anal orifice does not negate the possibility of an erection and penetration. This result does not contradict the positive testimony of XXX that the lower courts found credible, natural, and consistent with human nature; the medico-legal explained that his negative finding of trauma in the anal orifice

Page 14 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

does not remove the possibility of an insertion considering the flexibility of the sphincter. Note: The slightest penetration into one’s sexual organ distinguishes an act of lasciviousness from the crime of rape. PEOPLE VS SUAREZ G.R. 201151, January 14, 2015 The special aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the offender is a relative within the third civil degree by affinity and the victim who is a minor under eighteen years of age; Nighttime as aggravating circumstance. Moreover, it has been settled that in rape cases, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. The failure of a rape victim to offer tenacious resistance does not make her submission to accused's criminal acts voluntary. What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind. Note: The medical examination of the victim is not an element of rape. Moreover, the medical examination does not seek to establish who committed the crime, rather it merely corroborates the testimony of the rape victim that she has been raped. The prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings; a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. Alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. PEOPLE VS JOSON G.R. 206393, January 21, 2015. For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished this act through force, threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.

Her testimony has established all the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. First, appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. Second, appellant employed threat, force and intimidation to satisfy his lust. Force or intimidation is not limited to physical force. As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. PEOPLE VS SANTOS G.R. 205308, February 11, 2015 It was found that appellant’s guilt of the crimes he was accused of was clearly established by the witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. The trial court’s findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case. Appellant’s denial and uncorroborated defense of alibi cannot prevail over the credible and positive testimony of AAA that appellant raped her and committed acts of lasciviousness against her. PEOPLE VS ESPEJON, G.R. 199445, February 04, 2015 It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great respect—if not finality—on appeal. The rationale behind this rule is the recognition of the trial court’s unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue. The victim’s receipt of P20.00 from the appellant right after the former was forced to masturbate the latter is not prejudicial to the accusations of rape or attempted rape against the appellant. It neither excuses appellant’s dastardly acts nor implies AAA’s consent thereto.

Page 15 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

What is most notable is the fact that the money was an unsolicited thing that was handed to AAA after the ruttish subjection, such act which is indignity upon insult being part and parcel of the whole crime that started with the abductive taking to the bushes. The fear that numbed the person of AAA was, at the time of the lustful offer, still was overpowering. Then too, we must consider that AAA is a 12year-old victim of rape whose reputation for purity and chastity had never been sullied prior to her encounters with the appellant. It is incomprehensible that for an ordinary 12-yearold Filipina girl, who hitherto had only the faintest notion of carnal matters if at all, would just suddenly, and without any explanation whatsoever, surrender herself to the sexual desires of a married man almost four times her elder in exchange for money. PEOPLE VS COLENTAVA, G.R. 190348, February 09, 2015 In rape cases the date or time of commission of the offense is not an essential ingredient of said crime. “In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission.” The elements therefore of qualified rape are: “(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim.” It was held that failure to immediately disclose the rape does not warrant the conclusion that the victim was not raped especially in this case where a minor was threatened at gunpoint. PEOPLE VS CA, MINDANAO STATION, CARAMPATANA, OPORTO, & ALQUIZOLA G.R. 183652, February 25, 2015 Under the law, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age. Here, the accused intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than she could handle. They still forced

her to drink even when she was already obviously inebriated. They never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the latter was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private respondents ravished her. When the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence. The victim’s moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown that the victim was deprived of reason or was rendered unconscious through intoxication to enable the private respondents to have sex with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent. A freshly broken hymen is not one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. PEOPLE VS GALLANO G.R. 184762, February 25, 2015 To convict an accused charged with qualified rape instead of rape in its simple form not only condemns him to a more serious offense but also exposes him to an even greater liability. As such, the State is mandated to sufficiently allege in the information and to competently prove during trial the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship with the same certainty as the crime itself. Nonetheless, Gallano was guilty only of simple rape, not of qualified rape. In order that the accused is convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the victim must be a less than 18 years old; and (2) the offender must either be related to the victim by consanguinity of by affinity within the third civil degree, or is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. These two requisites must be both alleged and proved

Page 16 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

with absolute certainty. Otherwise, the accused could only be held guilty of simple rape. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority remain to be relevant in the crime of rape despite the abolition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346. The accused's civil liability depends on the mode of rape he committed.

PEOPLE VS NERIO, JR G.R. 200940, July 22, 2015 Conviction despite absence of mentally retarded victim in trial to corroborate criminal complaint.

PEOPLE VS NICAL G.R. 210430, February 18, 2015 It is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape. In fact, as used in our Revised Penal Code (RPC), “carnal knowledge,” unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. PEOPLE VS PEREZ G.R. 208071, March 9, 2016 Information charging an accused with the crime of rape qualified by relationship must succinctly state said accused is a relative within the third civil degree by consanguinity or affinity.

PLUNDER REYES VS OMBUDSMAN, ET AL. G.R. 212593-94/G.R. Nos. 213163-78/G.R. Nos. 213540-41/G.R. Nos. 213542-43/G.R. Nos. 215880-94/G.R. Nos. 213475-76. March 15, 2016 A Private Individual may be made answerable for the crimes of plunder While the primary offender in the aforesaid crimes are public officers, private individuals may also be held liable for the same if they are found to have conspired with said officers in committing the same. This proceeds from the fundamental principle that in cases of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. ESTAFA PEOPLE VS TIBAYAN & PUERTO G.R. 209655-60, January 14, 2015

PEOPLE VS VICTORIA G.R. 201110, July 6, 2015 Sweetheart Theory. Lack of Resistance and Unusual Behavior with Suspect does not affect credibility of a victim who is a minor. PEOPLE VS GARRIDO G.R. 191258, July 8, 2015 Rape conviction reversed because of circumstances prior and after the alleged rape contrary to human experience. PEOPLE VS MISA III G.R. 212336, July 15, 2015

Simple Rape conviction from Statutory Rape charge because of failure to present Birth Certificate. Rules on Age as a qualifying circumstance in crimes.

Syndicated Estafa under Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the RPC in relation to PD 1689. The elements of Estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

Page 17 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

The elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC,, is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, “samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

offender return the money received.

or

property

Under the first element, when the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner.

The SC ruled that the accused used TGICI to engage in a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Its organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlierstage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. It is not an investment strategy but a gullibility scheme, which works only as long as there is an ever increasing number of new investors joining the scheme.46 It is difficult to sustain the scheme over a long period of time because the operator needs an ever larger pool of later investors to continue paying the promised profits to early investors. The idea behind this type of swindle is that the “conman” collects his money from his second or third round of investors and then absconds before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.

Hence, conversion of personal property in the case of an employee having mere material possession of the said property constitutes theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom both material and juridical possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the same property constitutes Estafa.

BENABAYE VS PEOPLE G.R. 203466, February 25, 2015

According to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex crime is that corresponding to the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty will be void and ineffectual, and will not attain finality.

The elements of Estafa are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the offended party that the

Thus, being a mere custodian of the missing funds and not, in any manner, an agent who could have asserted a right against Siam Bank over the same, Benabaye had only acquired material and not juridical possession of such funds and consequently, cannot be convicted of the crime of Estafa as charged. In fine, the dismissal of the Estafa charge against Benabaye should come as a matter of course, without prejudice, however, to the filing of the appropriate criminal charge against her as may be warranted under the circumstances of this case. DE CASTRO VS PEOPLE G.R. 171672, February 02, 2015 In estafa through falsification of commercial documents

In the four criminal cases involved in this appeal, the falsification of commercial documents is punished with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (i.e., two years, four months and one day to six years) and a fine of P5,000.00. In contrast, the estafa is punished according to

Page 18 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

the value of the defraudation, as follows: with the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (i.e., four years, two months and one day to eight years) if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00, and if such amount exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty is imposed in the maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00, but the total shall not exceed 20 years, in which case the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be, in connection with the accessory penalties that may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of the Revised Penal Code; with the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (i.e., six months and one day to four years and two months) if the amount of the fraud is over P6,000.00 but does not exceed P12,000.00; with the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (i.e., four months and one day to two years and four months) if the amount of the fraud is over P200.00 but does not exceed P6,000.00; and with the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods (i.e., two months and one day to six months) if the amount of the fraud does not exceed P200.00. PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA G.R. 163662, February 25, 2015 The estafa charged in the information may be committed, therefore, when: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the payee has been defrauded. The deceit here should be the efficient cause of the defraudation, and should either be prior to, or simultaneously with, the act of the fraud. Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D 818, the penalty for estafa when the total value of the checks exceed P22,000.00 is reclusion temporal in its maximum period (i.e, 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years), plus one year for each additional P10,000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the

minimum term shall be from six years and one day to 12 years of prison mayor. In imposing the indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prison mayor, as minimum, to thirty years of reclusion perpetua as maximum, the CA correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. It is well to state that reclusion perpetua merely describes in this instance the penalty actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud involved. BENITO VS PEOPLE G.R. 204644, February 11, 2015 Conspiracy must be proven with evidence that can convince a trial court of its existence beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, there can be no conspiracy to commit a crime that has already been consummated. Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, "a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." Proof of conspiracy may be direct or circumstantial. So long as the evidence presented show a "common design or purpose" to commit the crime, all of the accused shall be held equally liable as co-principals even if one or more of them did not participate in all the details of the execution of the crime. For this reason, the fact of conspiracy "must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties," that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The estafa had already been consummated when "Linda Chua" allegedly pawned the jewelry on June 17, 1994. Benito, who was allegedly "Linda Chua," cannot be held criminally liable with Agbulos. "There can be no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which has already been done and consummated." CHENG VS PEOPLE G.R. 174113, January 13, 2016 The essence of this kind of Estafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made…In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of

Page 19 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. PEOPLE VS NIELLES & DELOS REYES G.R. 200308, February 23, 2015 Qualified theft

DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE G.R. 209387. January 11, 2016 Illegal Possession of Firearms While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused. In the absence of animus possidendi, the possessor of a firearm incurs no criminal liability. THEFT

The elements are: 1) taking of personal property; 2) that said property belongs to another; 3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain; 4) that it was done without the owner’s consent; 5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or of force upon things; and 6) that it was done with grave abuse of confidence. CANCERAN VS PEOPLE G.R. 206442, July 1, 2015 Frustrated Theft jurisprudence.

ZABALA VS PEOPLE G.R. 210760, January 26, 2015 The SC reversed the findings of the RTC and CA and acquitted the accused. It is a settled rule that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, and that direct evidence is not always necessary. This is but a recognition of the reality that in certain instances, due to the inherent attempt to conceal a crime, it is not always possible to obtain direct evidence. In the case before the Court, the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish the corpus delicti of theft. In Tan v. People, this Court said: Corpus delicti means the “body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed.” The “essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.” In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1)

does

not

exist

in

our

CELEDONIO VS PEOPLE G.R. 209137, July 1, 2015 Robbery with Force Upon Things Circumstantial evidence proves guilt; no illegal search if articles stolen are voluntarily presented. ANTI-HAZING LAW PEOPLE VS RADM VIRGINIO R. ARIS, ET AL. G.R. No. 174786 Under the Anti- Hazing Law, the failure by school authorities to take any action to prevent the offenses as provided by the law exposes them to criminal liability as accomplices in the criminal acts. They bear the commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes covered by the Anti-Hazing Law are not committed. It is a settled rule that the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even the latter’s acquittal,

Page 20 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. “The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence, the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.” Accordingly, so long as the commission of the crime can be duly proven, the trial of those charged as accomplices to determine their criminal liability can proceed independently of that of the alleged principal.

Period of Preventive Imprisonment Deducted from Term of Imprisonment Petitioner’s detention is relevant in determining whether he has already served more than the penalty imposed upon him by the trial court as modified by this court, or whether he is qualified to the credit of his preventive imprisonment with his service of sentence. LADINES VS PEOPLE G.R. 167333, January 11, 2016

The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or injury; and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s admission or entry into an organization. In the crime of hazing, the crucial ingredient distinguishing it from the crimes against persons defined under Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code is the infliction by a person of physical or psychological suffering on another in furtherance of the latter’s admission or entry into an organization.

Indeterminate Sentence Law

In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no direct participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by the above elements, occurred; (2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they consented to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof.

SENIT VS PEOPLE G.R. 192914, January 11, 2016 Trial in Absentia

DUNGO & SIBAL, JR. VS PEOPLE G.R. 209464, July 1, 2015

Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita; Intent of accused is immaterial; Consent of victim is immaterial.

DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE G.R. 209387. January 11, 2016

The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. PEOPLE VS MACAL G.R. 211062, January 13, 2016

RA 8049. Anti-Hazing Law

OTHERS

To impose the highest within a period of the imposable penalty without specifying the justification for doing so is an error on the part of the trial court that should be corrected on appeal. By not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or whimsical, or capricious. In the absence of the specification, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence…should be the lowest of the…period.

Defense of Accident In raising the defense of accident, the accusedappellant had the inescapable burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, of accidental infliction of injuries on the victim. Absence of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances in Penalty Imposed

Page 21 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

In the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. FRANCO VS PEOPLE G.R. 191185, February 1, 2016

condition during a reasonable period before and after. Direct testimony is not required nor are specific acts of disagreement essential to establish insanity as a defense. CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015

Burden of Proof The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense's evidence for it has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused - ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat - he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. PEOPLE VS SARIEGO G.R. 203322, February 24, 2016 It is the concurrence of both the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender that will be considered as a special qualifying circumstance, raising the penalty to the supreme penalty of death. CAUNAN VS PEOPLE G.R. 183529, February 24, 2016 On Bad faith and Manifest Partiality in Corrupt practices ‘Partiality’ is synonymous with ‘bias’ which ‘excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.’ ‘Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. VERDADERO VS PEOPLE G.R. 216021, March 2, 2016 Insanity as a Defense In order to ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of his mental

One cannot be held liable for other forms of swindling under Art. 316, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code absent a finding that he/she employed fraud or deceit in the form of false pretenses with regard to his/her ownership of the real property sold. FACTS: Estrellado-Mainar offered for sale to Eric Naval a lot and told the latter that the title to the land she was selling had no problems though it would “still be segregated from the mother title”. She argued that she did not misrepresent the subject land to be free from any lien or encumbrance, thus she should not be liable for the crime. RULING: For a successful prosecution of the crime of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the following essential elements of this crime must be established: (1) that the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building; (2) that the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he; is the owner thereof; (3) that the offender should have executed an act of ownership, e.g., selling, leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging the property; and (4) that the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a third person. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO BOCADI Y APATAN, ACCUSED, ALBERTO BATICOLON Y RAMIREZ. , G.R. No. 193388, July 01, 2015 A buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA, does not violate appellant's constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. FACTS: Baticolon and Bocadi were charged with a violation of Article II of R.A No. 9165. Baticolon questions the validity of the buy-bust operation. He contends that with the enactment of R.A. No. 9165, it is now

Page 22 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

required that all anti-drug operations shall be coordinated with the PDEA, and only specially trained and competent drug enforcement personnel shall conduct drug enforcement operations. He argues that the NBIs operation is highly questionable considering that it is neither a deputized agent of PDEA nor is buybust operations its primary mandate. RULING: Baticolon's argument is no longer novel. In People v. Sta. Maria, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA, does not violate appellant's constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests. Further, such contention is untenable because in this case the prosecution was able to establish that coordination with the PDEA was made prior to the buy-bust operation and even after the arrests were made. It is therefore evident that the arrests made by the NBI were legal and the evidence seized therefrom admissible in evidence. The presentation of the marked money is not essential in the validity of arrest. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. It is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence. These were done, and were proved by the prosecution's evidence. The Court has previously ruled that as long as the state can show by record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. HERMAN MEDINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. FACTS: Henry Lim engaged the services of Petitioner Medina to repair the door and roof of his Sangyong Korando Jeep. Medina told him that he took and installed them on Lim’s another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was also being repaired in the shop. Medina was charged with simple theft. RULING: Guilty. Medina acknowledged without hesitation the taking of the jeep’s alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with magwheels, but he put up the defense that they were installed in the pick-up owned by Lim. With such admission, the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that the missing parts were indeed lawfully taken which he failed to substantiate, through the presentation of supporting documentary evidence or corroborative testimony. NORBERTO VITANGCOL V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016 FACTS: Norberto married Alice. Alice discovered that Norberto was previously married to a certain Gina as evidenced by a marriage contract. According to Norberto, before his marriage with Alice, he revealed to her that he had a “fake marriage” with his college girlfriend. Alice filed the criminal Complaint for bigamy against Norberto. Norberto argues that the first element of bigamy is absent on the ground that no marriage license was issued in his favor and his first wife, as evidenced by a Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar. RULING: The Certification does not prove that petitioner’s first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. It does not categorically state that Marriage License No. 8683519 does not exist. The marriage contract between petitioner and Gina is a positive piece of evidence as to the existence of petitioner’s first marriage. This should be given greater credence than documents testifying merely as to the absence of any record of the marriage.

Page 23 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

We are not prepared to establish a doctrine that a certification that a marriage license cannot be found may substitute for a definite statement that no such license existed or was issued. Definitely, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite should be fully aware of the repercussions of those words. That the license now cannot be found is not basis per se to say that it could not have been issued. Marriage licenses may be conveniently lost due to negligence or consideration. The motivation to do this becomes greatest when the benefit is to evade prosecution.

[Galleon], the approved Board Resolutions by the DBP officers/board of directors, the participation/voting that transpired at the board meetings wherein the alleged behest loans were granted.

Assuming without conceding that petitioner’s first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license, petitioner remains liable for bigamy. Petitioner’s first marriage was not judicially declared void. For more than seven years before his second marriage, petitioner did nothing to have his alleged spurious first marriage declared a nullity. Even when this case was pending, he did not present any decision from any trial court nullifying his first marriage. All the elements of bigamy are present in this case. Petitioner was still legally married to Gina when he married Alice.

Individual respondents were accused of violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the elements of which are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. In the same vein, they were likewise charged with violation of Section 3 (g) of the same law, which has the following elements: (a) that the accused is a public officer; (b) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (c) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Notably, private individuals may also be charged with violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officers.

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT V. MA. MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ., G.R. No. 194159, October 21, 2015. FACTS: Loans/accommodations obtained by Galleon from DBP possessed positive characteristics of behest loans, considering that: (a) Galleon was undercapitalized; (b) the loan itself was under-collateralized; (c) the major stockholders of Galleon were known to be cronies of President Marcos; and (d) certain documents pertaining to the loan account were found to bear "marginal notes" of President Marcos himself. The officers/stockholders of National Galleon Shipping Corporation (Galleon) were charged of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019. The Ombudsman found no probable cause against private respondents violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, dismissed the criminal complaint against them. The Ombudsman noted that the PCGG failed to present the documents which would directly establish the alleged illegal transactions like, the Loan Agreement between DBP and

RULING: The Court is convinced that there is probable cause to indict individual respondents of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019. Hence, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaint against them.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MARK ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO, G.R. No. 215201. December 9, 2015. FACTS: AAA while going to work in a canteen in Makati, was invited by a certain Marlon to a drinking session with his friends. The group urged her to drink substantial amounts of liquor which left her half asleep. She was raped by them but because of the moonlight, she was able to identify appellant Mark Anthony Roaquin as the person violating her. Results of the medical examination stated that AAA suffered multiple injuries on her right arm and deep-healed laceration at 9 o'clock position accompanied by vaginal bleeding.

Page 24 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Roaquin’s arguments: 1.) inconsistency of witness’ testimony and 2.) That if the rape did occur, the vaginal wounds should be fresh and not healed. RULING: The rape conviction is proper. As to the finding of healed and not fresh lacerations, it will not negate the finding of the commission of rape. It is settled that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of rape.The narration by AAA of the circumstances was repeated on cross-examination and any minor discrepancies found are deemed negligible. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DASIGAN G.R. No. 206229. February 4, 2015. . FACTS: Dasigan was convicted by the lower court of illegal possession and illegal sale of shabu under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision. Dasigan avers that the prosecution failed to establish its unbroken chain of custody, as no photos were taken by the apprehending officers, and as, although the inventory was conducted, it was flawed because it was not conducted immediately after Dasigan’ arrest. RULING: While the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. VILLAR. G.R. No. 202708. April 13, 2015. FACTS: Villar was convicted of murder with two other persons. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The issue now lies whether the damages awarded is correct. RULING: It is settled that the indemnity for loss of earning capacity is in the form of actual

damages; as such, it must be proved by competent proof, “not merely by the selfserving testimony of the widow.” By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded in two instances: 1) the victim was self-employed and receiving less than the minimum wage under the current laws and no documentary evidence is available in the decendent’s line of business; and 2) the deceased was employed as a daily wage worker and receiving less than the minimum wage. CHUA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 196853. July 13, 2015. FACTS: Chua was convicted of 54 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Chua avers that the second element of the offense charged, i.e, knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, was not proved by the prosecution. RULING: The absence of the date of his actual receipt on the face of the demand letter prevented the legal presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds from arising. If there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, then the presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in B.P. Blg. 22 cannot arise. MANANSALA V. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015.

THE

FACTS: Manansala was convicted for falsification of privated documents. The lower court appreciated as mitigating circumstance Manansala’s acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear. RULING: “Acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear” is not among the mitigating circumstances enumerated in Article 13 of the RPC, but is an exempting circumstance provided under Article 12 (6) of the same Code. Moreover, for such a circumstance to be appreciated in favor of an accused, the following elements must concur: (a) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) that the fear must be real and imminent; and

Page 25 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

(c) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed.

to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OSCAR SEVILLANO, G.R. No. 200800 February 9, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. REGGIE VILLARIEZ ALIAS "TOTI"

FACTS: Pablo Maddauin was talking to two other people at a vacant lot. While conversing, they saw Oscar Sevillano coming toward them who could not walk straight and appeared to be drunk. Without warning, Sevillano pulled out a knife from his waist and stabbed Maddauin on the chest. Maddauin’s companions tried to restrain the Sevillano from attacking, but one of them experienced leg cramps and lost his hold on Sevillano. Sevillano turned again on Maddauin and continued to stab him several times more. Thereafter, the victim was brought to the hospital; but unfortunately, he died that same day.

FACTS: Villariez, together with his two brothers, Amado Villariez (Amado) and Tomas Villariez (Tomas), was charged in an Information for murder. The group all armed with guns of unknown caliber and with intent to kill, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and without any warning or provocation shot from behind one ENRIQUE OLIMBA, thereby inflicting upon the latter a fatal gunshot wound in the body causing the instantaneous death of said Enrique Olimba. The crime was committed with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery and known premeditation.

Sevillano interposed self-defense to absolve himself from criminal liability. He averred that he went to the vacant lot simply to feed his chicken. While doing so, he claims that Maddauin, who looked drunk, came at him with a drawn knife but missed his target; that they grappled for the knife and that the latter was accidentally stabbed.

The RTC found Villariez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The RTC found that the seething righteous indignation of the prosecution's witnesses against Villariez could have arisen only from their unadulterated knowledge of the identity of their kin's assailant. The RTC also gave weight to the positive identification of Villariez by Randy and found no reason to disregard the testimony of Ana on her father's dying declaration that it was "Toti" who shot him. The RTC, however, found that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and taking advantage of strength. Thus, it held Villariez liable for the crime of homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. The accused appealed the decision of the trial court.

RULING: In the prosecution of the crime of murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following elements must be established by the prosecution: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the former of any chance to defend himself or to repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. Under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the RPC, the following elements must be present in order that a plea of self-defense may be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal liability: First. Unlawful Aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed

The CA also found that Randy's testimony leaves no doubt that Villariez committed the crime. The CA also appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery since the shooting was swift, sudden and unforeseen which placed Villariez at a position which afforded him no risk arising from a defense which the victim might have made. RULING: The commission of the specific acts charged against Villariez constitutes the offense charged in the Information. The prosecution's failure to establish conspiracy due to the death of a co-conspirator and the dismissal of the

Page 26 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

case against another co-conspirator does not defeat the conviction of the accused for the offense charged and proven during the trial. For a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, the following requisites must concur: (1) the dying declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (2) at the time of making his declaration, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; (3) the declarant must have been competent to testify as a witness; and (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant was the victim. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Here, Randy witnessed that it was Villariez who shot his father at the back. Enrique, deep in thought while listening to the burial service, was unprepared and had no means to put up a defense. Enrique was shot unexpectedly which insured the commission of the crime without risk to Villariez. This treacherous act qualified the killing to murder.

released in his favor was fully returned by petitioner by way of deductions from his salaries and terminal leave pay more than a year after COA’s demand for the settlement thereof and long after his last term of office expired, c) payment not being a cause for extinction of criminal liability, the full restitution of the amount of the amount alleged to have been malversed does not exculpate petitioner, and d)the restitution of the malversed account is a mitigating circumstance that entitles petitioner to a reduction of the imposable penalty. HELD: Malversation of Public Funds to prosper, concurrence of the following elements must be proved: a) the offender is a public officer, b) he has custody or control of the funds or property by reason of his office, c) the funds or property are public funds of property for which he is accountable and d) he has appropriated, taken, misrepresentation or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

CRIMINAL LAW

DOMINGO PANGANIBAN V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR No 211543 FACTS: Petitioner is the mayor of the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. During his term, petitioner obtained a cash advance in the sum of Php 500,000.00 from the municipality, ostensibly for the purpose of defraying the projected expenses of a planned official travel to South Australia, to study and research on sustainable environmental projects. However, the official travel of petitioner did not push through for undisclosed reasons. As a consequence, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution, finding probable cause to charge petitioner with the crime of malversation of public funds. The public respondent rendered a decision, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation of public funds on the following grounds: a) the defense of good faith is unavailing since petitioner was legally obliged to return the money immediately after the period of his intended travel lapse, b) the cash advance

BAR EXAM PRE-WEEK HANDOUT Prepared by Justice Mario V. Lopez VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS RULE The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines do not justify a facial review of the validity of penal statutes. A facial challenge against a criminal statute is allowed only “as applied” to a particular defendant which considers extant facts affecting real litigants or on the basis of its actual operation to the parties. Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a departure from the usual requirement of "actual case and controversy" and permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no factual concreteness. (See Romualdez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 167011, December 11, 2008; and Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network vs. Anti-terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010)

Page 27 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable. The inapplicability of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal statutes are appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are used to mount ‘facial’ challenges to penal statutes not involving free speech.” (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)

January 31, 2005) (3) Direct bribery under the RPC and violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. There is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses. While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007)

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law

There is no double jeopardy in the following:

Libel by means of writing or “similar means” is already punishable under the RPC. Cybercrime Law merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication, hence, online libel is not a new crime.

(1) Estafa through falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: “Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.–In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:” x xx It is clear then that one may be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August 18, 2006 ) (2) Falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements shows that there is neither identity nor exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one. The differences between the elements needed to establish the commission of the two charges imply that the evidence required to prove the guilt or the innocence of the accused would likewise differ in each case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408 1 For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the modes of falsification. On the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused are public

Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.” Thus, charging the offender under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014) EXCESSIVE PENALTIES In crimes against property wherein the penalty is based on the value of the property, the court cannot modify the range of penalties based on the current inflation rate.xxx The primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Page 28 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is clear as to its intent and purpose. xxx The remedy here is to apply Article 5 of the RPC. The court will impose the penalty, although excessive, and recommend executive clemency thru the Department of Justice. (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014) MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. Here, tampering, increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate in any election or refusal, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes is inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala in se requiring criminal intent of the accused. (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006) Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. It is mala prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012) ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof (See Article 4 of the RPC). Here, petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching the victim who was much older than

him. Even if he did not intend to cause the death of the victim, he must be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him because he is the cause of the cause of the evil caused. (Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010) CONSPIRACY Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011) All the conspirators are liable as coprincipals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow is therefore no longer indispensable since in conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another.(People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for failing to inflict mortal wounds, both appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable for attempted murder since they were shown to have acted in conspiracy with each other although Ventura did not directly participate in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants' original objective may have only been the killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was correctly held liable for murder with appellant Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to death who just shouted for help after seeing his husband in mortal danger. (People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010) Accused-appellant who took no part in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in the common criminal plan, is not liable for carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that coconspirators are liable only for acts done in pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts done outside their contemplation or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4, 2003) There was no evidence to prove that all the appellants assisted Robito in killing Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which

Page 29 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime do not affect the other accused. Co-conspirators are criminally liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy on how and what are the necessary and logical consequences of the intended crime. (People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30, April 2, 2003) SELF-DEFENSE

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

Accused-appellants' flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed, their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully warranted the RTC’s rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012) The primordial element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011) The elements of unlawful aggression are: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. (People v. Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013) Retaliation is not the same as selfdefense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in selfdefense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused. (People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013) DWELLING

In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of tresspassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. (People v. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011)In robbery with force upon things, dwelling is inherent.

Evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed (or wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance. Here, Raymundo Roque provided such violent resistance against the conspirators, giving the latter no choice but to eliminate him from their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583) When it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered. It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, July 18, 2013) TREACHERY The idea of treachery does not apply when the killing is not premeditated or when the accused did not deliberately choose the means he employed for committing the crime. (People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2, 2011) The situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was killed while tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011)

Page 30 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Treachery may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become aware of it. (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011) Treachery applies to robbery with homicide as a generic aggravating circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and construing the penal code, which are accorded respect and persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have consistently applied treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. It does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex crime because treachery is applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the constituent crime of "robbery". (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003) Treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated, or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. (People v. Cañaveras, G.R. No. 193839, December 27, 2013) ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE Appellants and their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts of their bodies. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Obviously, appellants and their co-accused performed not only a single act but several individual and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not

include “single impulse.” (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012) Distinctions between a composite crime and a complex or compound crime under Article 48: In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. The penalty for a composite crime is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012) If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.(Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006 DELITO CONTINUADO Delito continuado exists when there is a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. The informations should be consolidated into a single information for they charge what is known as delito continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred to as "continuous crime." The informations charged petitioner with performing a single criminal act — that of her approving the

Page 31 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in the original information each amended information states the name of the individual whose stay was legalized. Moreover, the informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document. (Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) When there is delito continuado, the crime cannot be splitted into two or more crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in.

law that applies in a particular case. It is a proposition not arrived at by any process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On the other hand, a narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event. It is a recital of things accomplished, of deeds, occurrence or happening. Disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a narration of facts. Statements concerning relationship is descriptive and may be proved as to its truth or falsity. A certification that one was "eligible” or “qualified” is a conclusion of law although it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is an expression of belief or mistake of judgment.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES Penalty for the crime proved, not charged, determines the applicable prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense includible within the graver offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accussing the defendant of the graver offense.(Damasco v. Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988, citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 13, 1983) FALSIFICATION One is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. In other words, leaving a question blank in the PDS/SALN is falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011) Conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the

MALVERSATION Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation or passively through negligence. Even when the Information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. (Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011) The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality, which does not fall within the constitutional prohibition in Article XII, Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments to its charter. Not all corporations, which are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or chartered institutions which are otherwise known as “public corporations.” These corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government which are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic

Page 32 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

viability but to different criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objectives and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011) In technical malversation, public fund or property is considered appropriated if it had been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no technical malversation after the “general fund” of the municipality, intended by internal arrangement for use in paying a particular road, was applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, November 19, 2013) RAPE Medical evidence is dispensable and merely corroborative in proving the crime of rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011)The presence of hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No. 189821, March 23, 2011) It is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011) Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011) The degree of resistance that the victim may put up against the rapist need not be tenacious. Article 266-D of the RPC provided presumptions that: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts

punished under Article 266-A. (People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012) The accused cannot be convicted of rape through sexual assault, although proven during trial, if what was charged in the information is rape through carnal knowledge. This violated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is proper to convict the accused of acts of lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013) Sexual assault is committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the narrower "homosexual rape."(People v. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013) RAPE WITH HOMICIDE In rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the person killed is someone other than the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011) The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In contrast, the legislative intent on the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer to a killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape became evident. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012) KIDNAPPING In the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, it matters not that no ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient that a demand for it was made. (People v. Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10, 2013)

Page 33 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. (Con-ui, et. al., G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013) KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape.(People v. Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011)[N.B. The primary purpose is kidnapping.] KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)

Whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. (People v. Sugan, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011) There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the RPC. The element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. (Id.) CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE In proving the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.(People v. Nocum, et. al., G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013)

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE Homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if its commission was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. (People v. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012) In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized. (People v. Diu, et. al. G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013)

BIGAMY The crime of bigamy was already consummated the moment the accused contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void,.xxx[T]he subsequent judicial

declaration of nullity of the first marriage would not change the fact that the accused contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. (Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013) LIBEL Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth

Page 34 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

of the allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011) JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. No. 9344) Automatic suspension of sentence should apply to a child in conflict with the law regardless of the crime committed. (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011)Suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches the maximum age of 21. (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011) Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death. This means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. (see RA 6425; Jose v. People, G.R. No. 162052, January 13, 2005) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

Prescribed penalty refers to the initial penalty as a general prescription for the felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the penalty as modified after considering the attending and modifying circumstances; Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed penalty chosen by the court from the imposable penalty. Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to 6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is not applicable when the penalty prescribed is not more than 1 year. In this case, straight penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed.

PROBATION

Accused who appeals may still apply for probation.(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011)Probation Law is not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008) The Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him including the accessory penalties like disqualification to run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)

ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019) Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that it shall be unlawful for a public officer to directly or indirectly request or receive any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. The term “transaction” is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a transaction under the law. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013) The good faith of heads of offices in signing a document will only be appreciated if they, with trust and confidence, have relied on their subordinatesin whom the duty is primarily lodged.The defense will not apply when the accused is being held for gross and inexcusable negligence in performing the duties “primarily vested in him by law.” (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013) The Court has already interpreted "undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual damage" must not only be capable of proof; it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A finding of "undue injury" cannot be based on flimsy and nonsubstantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and

Page 35 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

169000, November 27, 2013) Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the information, the private person may be indicted alone. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) Private persons may be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officer. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracvticesAct which is "to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.” (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013)

both crimes. If the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A of the RPC.(Balois, et. al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. Nos. 182130 and 182132, June 19, 2013) RA 7610 applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.(Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013) COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS & AMMUNITION (RA 10591) The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610) Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in child abuse cases. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person. It is mala prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013) Intent to degrade the dignity of a child is required in child abuse. Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse, except when it is intended to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being. (Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013) It was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law. Thus, sexual assault committed against a minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized under RA 7610 which prescribed a higher penalty.(People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011) The DOJ erred in charging the accused with Rape in relation to Child Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The accused may be charged only for one and not

If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is lower, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed. If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is equal to that imposed for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense. An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance with this Act.

Page 36 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

[N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly, the old law which is more favorable to the accused should be applied to any violations committed prior to its effectivity.] COMPREHENSIVE ACT (RA 9165)

DANGEROUS

DRUGS

"Transport" means the movement of the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from one place to another.” Here, the accused were arrested inside a car which was not in transit. The car was parked and stationary. The prosecution failed to show that any distance was travelled. The conclusion that the accused transported the drugs merely because they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and is mere speculation. (San Juan v. People, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011) “Transportation of Drugs” is committed when the accused was apprehended while boarding his flight with drugs in his possession. While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another. (People v. Laba, G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013) “Drug Selling” is consummated upon the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. (People v. Hong Yen and Chua, G.R. No. 181826, January 9, 2013) It is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014)When there is a search warrant, marking and

inventory shall be at the place where the search was conducted. In a buy-bust operation, the marking and inventory may be done immediately or at the nearest police station. Non-compliance with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. (Id.) [N.B. Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule affects the credibility of the evidence and will not invalidate arrest or render inadmissible the items seized.] It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcer's failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012) ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)

WOMEN

&

"Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child. On the other hand, "Dating relationship" exists even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved. While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013) The law punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women. This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect

Page 37 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016

Green Notes 2016

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

women and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010) ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, as amended) Money Laundering Offense Money laundering is committed by any person who performs any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,2 knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council fails to do so. Prosecution of Money Laundering Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity. The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity. [N.B. Terrorism is one of the predicate crimes] Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property The AMLC may file an ex parte petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If there is probable cause that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the circumstances of the case.

If there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits The AMLC may also inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment, including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court based on an ex parte application when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity. Application to inquire into or examine any deposit or investment filed with the Court of Appeals shall be acted upon within twentyfour (24) hours from filing. --GOD BLESS-“Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; …in hard work, sleepless nights… through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report…yet we live on; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.” -- 2 Corinthians 6:4-10

2 (a) transacts said monetary instrument or property; (b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or property; (c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property; (d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c); (e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and (f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.

Page 38 of 38 BAR OPERATIONS 2016